Literature DB >> 31100235

Not All Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies Are Equal: The Impact of the Type of Approach and Operator Expertise on the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

Armando Stabile1, Paolo Dell'Oglio2, Giorgio Gandaglia2, Nicola Fossati2, Giorgio Brembilla3, Giulia Cristel3, Federico Dehò2, Vincenzo Scattoni2, Tommaso Maga2, Andrea Losa2, Franco Gaboardi2, Gianpiero Cardone3, Antonio Esposito3, Francesco De Cobelli3, Alessandro Del Maschio3, Francesco Montorsi2, Alberto Briganti2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The extensive use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has led to an even more widespread use of different targeted biopsy techniques and approaches. The best way of performing targeted biopsies and the effect of operator expertise have still to be defined.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) of different mpMRI targeted approaches and to assess the role of operator expertise in the detection of csPCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We included 244 consecutive patients who underwent both 12-core transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy and mpMRI targeted biopsy with either a cognitive biopsy (CB) or fusion biopsy (FB) approach during the same session between 2013 and 2016 at a single tertiary referral centre. INTERVENTION: All men underwent 1.5-T mpMRI with an endorectal coil. All biopsies were performed by three operators as their first cases of targeted biopsy. Lesions with a Prostate Imaging Recording and Data System (PI-RADS) v.2 score of ≥3 detected at mpMRI were targeted. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: csPCa was defined as disease with a Gleason score at biopsy of ≥7. Operator expertise was coded as the progressive number of targeted biopsies performed by each physician. Multivariable logistic regression analyses (MVA) were used to assess the association between the targeted biopsy technique (FB vs CB) and operator expertise for detection of csPCa. Covariates consisted of prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, PI-RADS v.2 (3 vs >3), number of targeted cores per MRI lesion, and digital rectal examination (negative vs positive). The same analyses were performed for patients undergoing FB only after accounting for the FB approach (transrectal vs transperineal). A lowess smoothing weighted function was used to graphically assess the effect of operator expertise on the probability of detecting csPCa, after accounting for all confounders. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 157 patients (64%) underwent FB and 87 (36%) underwent CB. The overall csPCa detection rate was 58% for FB and 45% for CB (p=0.07). A significantly higher rate of csPCa detection in targeted samples was observed for FB compared to CB (57% vs 36%; p=0.002). On MVA, FB and operator expertise were significantly associated with a higher probability of csPCa detection in targeted samples (odds ratio [OR] 2.4 and 1.7, respectively; both p≤0.03). When the same analyses were repeated for patients undergoing FB, operator expertise remained an independent predictor of csPCa detection (OR 1.9; p=0.004). An increase in the probability of detecting csPCa with the number of procedures performed was observed after accounting for all confounders.
CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that FB had higher detection rate than CB for csPCa. Moreover, operator expertise was significantly associated with higher detection rates for csPCa. PATIENT
SUMMARY: When different targeted biopsy techniques were compared, fusion biopsy provided a higher detection rate compared to cognitive biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Moreover, we found that operator expertise was an important predictor of the detection of csPCa, regardless of the procedure used.
Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diagnosis; Fusion biopsy; Image-guided biopsy; Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 31100235     DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.02.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol Oncol        ISSN: 2588-9311


  11 in total

Review 1.  Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions.

Authors:  Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Geert Villeirs; Inderbir S Gill; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Preoperative prediction of pelvic lymph nodes metastasis in prostate cancer using an ADC-based radiomics model: comparison with clinical nomograms and PI-RADS assessment.

Authors:  Xiang Liu; Xiangpeng Wang; Yaofeng Zhang; Zhaonan Sun; Xiaodong Zhang; Xiaoying Wang
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2022-06-28

3.  Selecting patients for magnetic resonance imaging cognitive versus ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate: A within-patient comparison.

Authors:  Mitch Hayes; Solange Bassale; Nicholas H Chakiryan; Luc Boileau; Jacob Grassauer; Matthew Wagner; Bryan Foster; Fergus Coakley; Sudhir Isharwal; Christopher L Amling; Jen-Jane Liu
Journal:  BJUI Compass       Date:  2022-06-05

Review 4.  Transperineal prostate biopsy: The modern gold standard to prostate cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Gernot Ortner; Eirini Tzanaki; Bhavan Prasad Rai; Udo Nagele; Theodoros Tokas
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2020-10-09

5.  The prognostic value of high-grade prostate cancer pattern on MRI-targeted biopsies: predictors for downgrading and importance of concomitant systematic biopsies.

Authors:  Cécile Manceau; Gaëlle Fromont-Hankard; Jean-Baptiste Beauval; Marine Lesourd; Christophe Almeras; Anne-Sophie Bajeot; Jean-Romain Gautier; Michel Soulié; Guillaume Loison; Ambroise Salin; Christophe Tollon; Bernard Malavaud; Mathieu Roumiguié; Guillaume Ploussard
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-02-20       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Analyzing the learning curves of a novice and an experienced urologist for transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Emanuel Darius Cata; Charles Van Praet; Iulia Andras; Pierre Kadula; Razvan Ognean; Maximilian Buzoianu; Daniel Leucuta; Cosmin Caraiani; Attila Tamas-Szora; Karel Decaestecker; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-05

7.  Systematic sampling during MRI-US fusion prostate biopsy can overcome errors of targeting-prospective single center experience after 300 cases in first biopsy setting.

Authors:  Emanuel Cata; Iulia Andras; Matteo Ferro; Pierre Kadula; Daniel Leucuta; Gennaro Musi; Deliu-Victor Matei; Ottavio De Cobelli; Attila Tamas-Szora; Cosmin Caraiani; Andrei Lebovici; Flavia Epure; Maria Bungardean; Radu-Tudor Coman; Nicolae Crisan
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-12

Review 8.  Comparative Effectiveness of Techniques in Targeted Prostate Biopsy.

Authors:  Dordaneh Sugano; Masatomo Kaneko; Wesley Yip; Amir H Lebastchi; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Andre Luis Abreu
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 6.639

9.  Factors Influencing Variability in the Performance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.

Authors:  Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Gianluca Giannarini; Caroline M Moore; Anwar R Padhani; Valeria Panebianco; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Georg Salomon; Baris Turkbey; Geert Villeirs; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Urol Oncol       Date:  2020-03-17

10.  Developing a coordinate-based strategy to support cognitive targeted prostate biopsies and correlative spatial-histopathological outcome analysis.

Authors:  Keiran D Clement; Lizzy Day; Helen Rooney; Matt Neilson; Fiona Birrell; Mark Salji; Elizabeth Norman; Ross Clark; Amit Patel; John Morrison; Hing Y Leung
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2021 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.285

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.